5 ms·

There is stuff you need to know cold, and stuff you should be able to reference. I do not want an ER doctor checking an anatomy book to figure out what they are

by mlac 5y ago

There is stuff you need to know cold, and stuff you should be able to reference. I do not want an ER doctor checking an anatomy book to figure out what they are looking at when someone rolls into the ER. I do want a surgeon to look up and learn the latest outcomes if I am going in for scheduled surgery. They are two different skills. Good exams should ensure the student knows core principles cold (and should test that) and should allow for some level of reference material for concepts that would be more appropriate to research (maybe homework or projects?). What should be memorized vs. what should be looked up varies by professor (do students need to know the formulas to apply them? Memorize constants? Etc?). The key here is that when I hire someone with a certain degree, I expect that they have a set of knowledge that they know cold, and they factor that knowledge into their decision making. If they've cheated to their degree and don't truly understand the concepts cold, then they may not be able to synthesize knowledge about their degree / experience and bring it to bear to have a unique perspective on the situation / problem. They may not see that a certain approach applies because they might not remember the concept or understand how it would be relevant in that context. Anyone can google a problem and figure out existing solutions - it's more valuable if you're able to draw connections across things you've learned that matters. I've found it is harder to draw connections (and slower if it happens at all) if a person doesn't know the material outright.

908B64B197 5y ago
> I do not want an ER doctor checking an anatomy book to figure out what they are looking at when someone rolls into the ER. Truth is, we want a specific outcome out of these workers. But do we care that they had a 4.0 or a 3.9 GPA in their unrelated mandatory non-med-related undergrad? Absolutely not.
- mlac 5y ago
  If the 3.9 or 4.0 was used to beat out another applicant to medical school with a 3.6 who was actually learning skills that would help them as a doctor, then yes, we should care. And that's why I mentioned a relevant class and not underwater basket weaving in the example. I'd also argue the specific outcome we should aim for is people who know what they are doing, and whose credentials accurately reflect their knowledge (not their ability to game the system or cheat).
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > who was actually learning skills that would help them as a doctor, then yes, we should care. And that's why I mentioned a relevant class and not underwater basket weaving in the example. From my experience, there's nothing of value out of the mandatory pre-med school undergrad. Universities don't even care (these students are bringing in tuition money).
    - mlac 5y ago
      If there’s truly nothing of value for four years of school, then I’d argue that university isn’t really worth attending… And the required courses of bio, chem, o chem, and physics give all doctors a basic understanding of the scientific method, how biology works (that’s important), and a basic knowledge of skills required for pharmacology. Everything else is optional for Med school, but I can’t see how, everything else equal, someone who cheats their way through these would be more prepared for medical school than someone who actually learned the concepts.
      - 908B64B197 5y ago
        > If there’s truly nothing of value for four years of school, then I’d argue that university isn’t really worth attending The value is being able to fulfill a requirement. > And the required courses of bio, chem, o chem, and physics give all doctors a basic understanding of the scientific method, how biology works (that’s important), and a basic knowledge of skills required for pharmacology. That's one year worth of coursework out of the mandatory 4 years of undergrad. > Everything else is optional for Med school, but I can’t see how, everything else equal, someone who cheats their way through these would be more prepared for medical school than someone who actually learned the concepts. They would have more time to prepare for the MCAT or pad their resume with extra-curricular, making them more competitive. Or have a part time job to pay for the expensive in-person interviews.
  - swiley 5y ago
    Ironically this kind of attitude tends to encourage cheating.

by mlac 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

> I do not want an ER doctor checking an anatomy book to figure out what they are looking at when someone rolls into the ER. Truth is, we want a specific outcome out of these workers. But do we care that they had a 4.0 or a 3.9 GPA in their unrelated mandatory non-med-related undergrad? Absolutely not.

mlac 5y ago
If the 3.9 or 4.0 was used to beat out another applicant to medical school with a 3.6 who was actually learning skills that would help them as a doctor, then yes, we should care. And that's why I mentioned a relevant class and not underwater basket weaving in the example. I'd also argue the specific outcome we should aim for is people who know what they are doing, and whose credentials accurately reflect their knowledge (not their ability to game the system or cheat).
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > who was actually learning skills that would help them as a doctor, then yes, we should care. And that's why I mentioned a relevant class and not underwater basket weaving in the example. From my experience, there's nothing of value out of the mandatory pre-med school undergrad. Universities don't even care (these students are bringing in tuition money).
  - mlac 5y ago
    If there’s truly nothing of value for four years of school, then I’d argue that university isn’t really worth attending… And the required courses of bio, chem, o chem, and physics give all doctors a basic understanding of the scientific method, how biology works (that’s important), and a basic knowledge of skills required for pharmacology. Everything else is optional for Med school, but I can’t see how, everything else equal, someone who cheats their way through these would be more prepared for medical school than someone who actually learned the concepts.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > If there’s truly nothing of value for four years of school, then I’d argue that university isn’t really worth attending The value is being able to fulfill a requirement. > And the required courses of bio, chem, o chem, and physics give all doctors a basic understanding of the scientific method, how biology works (that’s important), and a basic knowledge of skills required for pharmacology. That's one year worth of coursework out of the mandatory 4 years of undergrad. > Everything else is optional for Med school, but I can’t see how, everything else equal, someone who cheats their way through these would be more prepared for medical school than someone who actually learned the concepts. They would have more time to prepare for the MCAT or pad their resume with extra-curricular, making them more competitive. Or have a part time job to pay for the expensive in-person interviews.
- swiley 5y ago
  Ironically this kind of attitude tends to encourage cheating.